Underkilt

[Dreadbelly]

This garment could be useful to some, but to a more traditional kilt wearer it would have to be a color more inline with tartan or solid kilts. White is just not practical for the masculine appearnace. A UK is much more inline with a traditional kilt than the feminine garments on that site but not as traditional as a tank. So we have a spectrum.

Whether the definition of the kilt is defended consistently or not it must be defended when needed to maintain it's identity. To draw a parallel, the confederate battle flag is simply the flag carried by confederate armies to identify themselves and consisted of symbols representing the states included in the confederacy. The flag in and of itself is not a racist element but groups of people who were racist took that flag and soiled it with their horrible message. Today when someone see's that flag the immediate reaction is to assume it's racist because the historical, and traditional signifigance of it was not defended by those who treasure it. If we value the kilt as a masculine garment we need to defend it and object to the feminization of it by anyone who trys to corrupt it. Otherwise we have no one to blame for the skirt jokes except ourselves and the tradition and history of the kilt will be lost and the future will be written by those who
do not treasure it.

Very well said good sir.

[bear]

I would like to post a rebuttal to Bearkilts derogatory take on my company's products. I joined the Tom's Cafe forum to learn about the market and how people wanted to refer to some of our unique products. I also do a lot of reading, attend markets and trade shows, conduct surveys, etc. It seems that there are a lot of people out there that want to call anything pleated a "kilt". Most men are just more comfortable buying something called a kilt. I have seen a number of products in the marketplace called kilts that don't resemble anything I remember seeing on a true Scotsman. I.e. Utilikilt, Mountaingear, Amerikilt, etc. If I argue with my customers and tell them they can't call it a kilt, it would be pointless. Like it or not, kilts will evolve. As did the Great Kilt (as I understand that it was just a blanket). Don't ge me wrong, when I think of a kilt, its a traditional pleated tartan. - I am not the one who blurred the definitions in the market place.

As with the Underkilt, my company is about creating new ideas. We work with lightweight fabrics and are in the business of making very comfortable and wearable clothing. The "Underkilt" idea has already been sold to a number kilt wearers whom like the kilted look, but don't like the feel of wool or heavy canvas. Maybe it works for you, maybe it doesn't.

Slips are designed for women's shape. The Underkilt is a new product designed for men.

-- Dave

Derogatory? Where?
http://www.tomscafe.org/forums/showt...?threadid=8215
That's the link to the poll you took to find out if the guys at Tom's Cafe cared if you called your skirts kilts. They didn't care, of course. It is a skirt site and they are for free speech, unless you want to call a kilt a kilt, then they scream, "skirt," at you.
You don't make kilts. You make skirts. Calling them kilts is a marketing ploy.
If the truth is derogatory, tough.
A kilt made for a woman is still a kilt. A slip made for a man is still a slip.
Your company is all about marketing and 0% about kilts. You said as much in your poll at Tom's Cafe.
So don't go crying foul when your own words come back to haunt you.

[flyv65]

That's probably a reasonable assertion Bob. Marketers are not stupid people.

I'm reminded of the time Dilbert said "remember-its not marketing's job to screw the customer. It is marketing's job to hold them down so *salespeople* can screw the customer". Since my wife is in marketing, we find this endlessly hilarious.

In the original thread (with reference to kilt vs. skirt vs. sarong), I went to the Great American Beer Festival last night at the new Convention Center. Saw about 5 people in kilts (mostly UK, 1 possible Stillwater?), and one fellow in a...well... it looked kind of sarong like-but it also looked like he wrapped a towel around his waist. This wouldn't have caused a stir at all in this venue (hard to believe, huh?), except that was trying to adjust it while holding his taster's glass, program, and small bag without success. Is it still called regimental if the garment worn is a sarong?

My point in mentioning this is that that there are enough traits common to both the trads and the neos (pleat style and direction, belts, etc.), that when we see them still think "kilt" instead of "skirt". I sometimes feel we spend more time on this subject picking at minor differences than recognizing the greater similarities.

Bryan...maybe if that fellow's sarong had let go in front of the ladies room instead of the men's room he'd have met with greater acceptance...

[Colin]

I would like to post a rebuttal to Bearkilts derogatory take on my company's products. I joined the Tom's Cafe forum to learn about the market and how people wanted to refer to some of our unique products. I also do a lot of reading, attend markets and trade shows, conduct surveys, etc. It seems that there are a lot of people out there that want to call anything pleated a "kilt". Most men are just more comfortable buying something called a kilt. I have seen a number of products in the marketplace called kilts that don't resemble anything I remember seeing on a true Scotsman. I.e. Utilikilt, Mountaingear, Amerikilt, etc. If I argue with my customers and tell them they can't call it a kilt, it would be pointless. Like it or not, kilts will evolve. As did the Great Kilt (as I understand that it was just a blanket). Don't ge me wrong, when I think of a kilt, its a traditional pleated tartan. - I am not the one who blurred the definitions in the market place.

As with the Underkilt, my company is about creating new ideas. We work with lightweight fabrics and are in the business of making very comfortable and wearable clothing. The "Underkilt" idea has already been sold to a number kilt wearers whom like the kilted look, but don't like the feel of wool or heavy canvas. Maybe it works for you, maybe it doesn't.

Slips are designed for women's shape. The Underkilt is a new product designed for men.

-- Dave

The truth hurts mate. As I said over at Tom's over the "is it a kilt or a skirt" debate, and your poll, if you want to gain a non biased result conduct your poll at more sites than just Tom's. Those are people that wear evening gowns and call them Kilts to justify their own insecurities. I guarantee you that the same poll would differ quite drastically is done here. Go for it, I too have studied a lot of marketing, and the point is to get as much information from as many sources as possible. If you are only getting your primary information from one source can it really be seen as reliable? Be sure to also try your poll at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scotattire/ , www.kiltmen.com , thebloodisstrong.com , and others

Calling a product which is clearly a skirt (and not a kilt) a kilt simply to sell more products to insecure and cheap people is deception for a profit, not brilliant market research. If you guys in the men's skirt market ever want to achieve mainstream recognition, you need to stop riding on the coat tails of a proud and traditional garment.

Before you come back with your rebutal about Utilikilts and the market share they reach by calling it a kilt, let me say this. I do not consider Utilikilts to be a kilt (by definition or design) Steven himself has admitted that he did not base it on a Scottish kilt design. Utilikilts has created a new market in the utility kilt. This market now includes Utilikilts, Freedom Kilts (thought they have more of a traditional design), Pittsburgh kilts, Amerikilts, etc. It's a niche market that found a need and filled it. Most of those companies have never tried to pass themselves off as a traditional kilt, nor have they said the definition needs to change and evolve to suit their needs. Do I consider these companies kilts ? Not really (with the exception of Freedom kilts), but I do consider them a new sub-section of kilts that. Now you product is more like a Sportkilt and again, no way would I consider this a "kilt" just because it is made of tartan.

And no, I am a Canadian of Scottish heritage and I would not wear a slip!

[highlander_Daz]

Without wishing to upset anyone, In my opinion only a kilt is a mans garment with an apron at the front and pleats at the back and comes from one belly button to the middle of one knee and is plain or often tartan. Ive never really regarded "utikilts" and stuff like that as Traditional kilts, I know they are very popular and stylish but to me I would really call then a kilt, If you were to go around and ask the fabled "man in the street" I think they would say they are a mans skirt. In the UK they would anyway.
I cant see why they cant call them mens skirts whats wrong with that?? its a case of changing attitudes. As Ive said before they dont appeal to me but then again thats me. Im not denying they are stylish and popular but to my they are not kilts. they are skirts for men which is fine by me.
I wouldnt wear a slip under any circumstance.

[bubba]

Y'know, the kilt as skirt thing is why I left Toms altogether and had myself removed from the userbase. Yes, I wear kilts. No, I don't consider them to be the same as a skirt. What is pictured earlier in this thread are NOT kilts under any stretch of the definition. I may not be as traditional in my definition as Daz is but I have limits and, no, I'm not about to wear a slip either. I'm Bubba, not Bubbette.

[KiltedPilot]

Devil's Advocate here:

I am not sure we can criticise manufacturers for trying to use 'kilt' instead of 'skirt' to describe their skirts for men, until WE get over OUR hangups about the word 'skirt', or come up with an alternative word (please not 'mug'). Aren't WE the ones with the problem? The manufacturers are just trying to help us deal with it.

I ain't criticising anyone here -- I feel discomfort about the word 'skirt' also. I am more laid back than I was, as my experience is that many women naturally call a Utilikilt a skirt. Sometimes in innocence, sometimes playfully, but rarely to insult.

Mike

nb. I'd not consider any of the JDez products personally - most are too girly.

[auld argonian]

FlyV65 wrote"

"Is it still called regimental if the garment worn is a sarong?"

No...I think that it's then called "going Polynesian".

best

auld argonian

[bubba]

Devil's Advocate here:
Aren't WE the ones with the problem? The manufacturers are just trying to help us deal with it.
.

I don't see it as a problem at all. Manufacturers aren't into helping anyone deal with anything. They're helping themselves to as much profit as can be got. We each have our own viewpoint and definition of what's a kilt and what isn't. Some of us are more traditional than others but I'm sure we each have our limit on what we'll accept.

[JDEZ]

As a small apparel manufacturer, we are exploring new niche markets. We in no-way want to deceive people. Our products are unique and we struggle frequently with how to best describe some of them. The most difficult battle has been with our conservative backers who initially said "pants are for men skirts (and kilts) are for girls". The apparel industry and consumer markets are very entrenched into certain ways of thinking. This is very evident as we found that most wives won't generally let their husbands buy something called a skirt. Since "MUG" didn't work, we looked at trying to introduce a new term: "Klug" (Kilt-Like Un-bifurcated Garment), "Skilt", "Kilet", "M-skirt", "one-legged short", etc.

But without huge advertising budgets, the consumer doesn't seem to get it. I am sure that the folks at Utilikilt and other non-traditional MUG makers have found out the same thing. - You just get fewer objections if you don't use feminine terms. Hopefully, with the efforts of companies like Cityskirt.com and Maccabiskirt.com, someday the wives will not be compelled to call a men's skirt a kilt. Until then, unless someone want's to belly up to the bar and buy the house a round (put $millions into educating the market so everyone knows what a MUG is), the trend towards referring to men's non-bifurcated garments as "kilts" is likely to continue. We will do our best through photography and text description to make sure that someone ordering our product knows exactly what they are buying. We in no-way have implied thus far that we sell traditional kilts.

We settled on the term "Kilt-Short" for our most popular item: (Ultra-Light Cargo Kilt-Short). Because it can be converted to decent looking shorts via hidden snap. We have sold a lot of these to men who needed something lighter in hot weather or for exercise, etc. Most of our customers own Utilikilts and/or tartan kilts.

As for the really short item (our Greek Kilt-Short), I has been a surprisingly popular item for beach cover-up and spa.

We are not referring to our Mock Cargo Sarong as a kilt (as is the "Surf-kilt" product I have seen advertised). It is clearly a sarong.

Back to the subject of the Underkilt: As indicated by the number of orders placed this morning as a result of this thread, there seems to be good interest in a men's garment that insulates the wearer and kilt. I sincerely thank you all who have placed orders and I will be eagerly awaiting your review.

-- Dave